Enough of me talking, heres the singing scientists…

Symphony of Science – ‘The Big Beginning’ (ft. Hawking, Sagan, Dawkins, Shears, Tyson)

For those of you who have never seen any of the amazing videos created by Symphony of Science, visit their site. The most popular is probably their original video (my personal favorite), “A Glorious Dawn”. It and all their subsequent videos including “The Big Beginning” can be found http://www.symphonyofscience.com/

I dont watch the golden globes, I could care less about who wins what. If I watch any part of anything that happened at the Golden Globes, it will be to see something Gervais did, because its probably funny.

I cant believe the amount of fucking hysteria in the media because this man not nice to super famous, super rich people getting solid gold jewel encrusted trophies (idk wtf it looks like actually) at the discretion of other unnecessarily rich people – for having had the privilege of getting paid millions of golden jewel encrusted dollars to play pretend.

Be happy your lucky enough to sit there and get made fun of while awaiting a golden trophy.
The awards dont matter, your movie doesn’t matter, your fame doesn’t matter.

Get the fuck over it, get the fuck over yourselves.

EDIT: Thought I might as well include a youtube clip of the opening. Hysterical…

I had not participated in the “Rally to Restore Sanity Chicago” group before the rally actually took place, and the most I did was tell others about the Chicago rally and encourage them to come – I dont think any of them did. So, all that considered I feel a bit awkward having something to say about it now.

The ambiance early on was amazing, nerds in costume (including a little kid dressed as Harry Potter), there were funny signs everywhere, there was groups of strangers dancing with each other to the music playing from DC. It was electric, it was loose, it was fun and jovial.

The event went well enough on its own, maybe some of the comedians weren’t the most exciting, maybe some of the speakers didn’t actually have much to say – but all things considered, it was an interesting event, interesting speakers, and I am happy I was in attendance. There was a speaker from the Chicago Progressive Alliance (or something or other), there was an immigrant who made his case about immigration reform and a plea for people go exercise their right to vote – a right that so many people wish they had, and there was also a doctor in a lab coat expressing the need for universal healthcare. There were also couple good musical acts, and of couse several comedians including Greg Hollimon (Principal Blackman from “Strangers with Candy”). I liked everything, I agreed with most of the things everyone said, and I thought the comedians did an excellent job.

Oh yeah, and the D.C. rally. Well, we saw about 10 minutes at the beginning, then they muted the jumbotron and went on with local bits. That did no sit well with many in the audience. People began chanting “au-di-o, au-di-o”, to the point of disrupting the speakers on stage. The crowd’s protests led to a brief cut to the D.C. rally, only to be cut off once again at the moment Ozzy Osbourne and Cat Stevens were on screen. The cumulative “aww” was deafening. When it was muted, we got to hear the enthralling words of a member of some progressive group thanking a laundry list of people for having them at the event.

I guess I did not really know what to expect out of the chicago rally. However, I did expect some semblance of the meta-argument about how we argue that Stewart has started.

While I pretty much agree with everything that was said at the rally by the politicians, the immigrant, and the doctor, and so forth – and while I thought the comedians were OK – I dont think any of Stewarts fans really expected that “The Rally to Restore Sanity” would be used as a platform for liberal-progressive local politicians. Thats what we got. No meta-discussion, no satire, not even from the comedians.

I understand the frustration that was experienced in the crowd. On both sides. On one side, people wanted to be part of something national – they wanted Jon Stewart – they expected more than a total of 10 mins or so at the end, and whatever small portions we got at the beginning (we also got a small bit in the middle, but that was because some in the crowed yelled for it).

On the other hand, it was not very “sane” of them to scream and continuously interrupt the speakers on the stage. I’ll admit, I yelled early on once, when Stewart first came on stage on the jumbotron. However, if its clear the intent is NOT to cut to D.C., dont be an ass just because you didnt get what you want.

There were people up in front yelling back at the protesters “you can watch tv at home!”. They are right of course, you can watch TV at home, on the other hand – you can use a different name for your rally – and not usurp a very different national movement to push the local politics you agree with.

The end of the conflict came when a member of the security team took the mic, and threatened to kick out anyone else who disruptive. This was the least sane moment of the entire event. The event was in a public park, without permits – on the basis of the First Amendment. The notion that you might eject someone form that public gathering for what they are saying is so ridiculous, that I dont know what more insane word I can use than ridiculous. (maybe its Hitler, yes.. thats it, its Hitler,… and socialism). After that moment – the jovial attitude of the crowd was dead. There was no more dancing, there was no more chanting (of any kind), and the best any speaker got was spattering of applause and light chuckles.

I dont know how wise it is, even for a comedian himself, to do their rather slow, soft-spoken, dead-pan bits, while standing next to a giant jumbotron showing Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens), and Ozzy Osborn, making havoc on screen. Of course people will want to see whats going on, on screen.

This could have worked, well. With few changes. More cuts to DC… NO politicians. Less thanking everyone in the universe (do that at the end, not while theres a Giant 20 foot inflatable Stephen Colbert on the screen). Perhaps plan a slightly longer event, that starts earlier, ends later – and then includes follow-up discussions with the crowd. Oh, and NO politicians.

Did I mention? NO POLITICIANS…

In the end, my disappointment was not that I disagreed with any particular opinion, and it was not even entirely that we didnt all just watch the jumbotron the whole time – but rather that the Rally to Restore Sanity title and event were somewhat abused to present partisan opinions opinions.

Seriously though.. the politicians had no place there – it was completely the wrong context. And please understand… I like Rich Whitey.

All that said, my own complaints sound just a bit hollow. What i’ve perceived as a bit of false advertisement in connecting this to the Stewart rally, aside – the effort to make this event happen was a lot more than I did. Especially since I did nothing, except write this, and complain ex post facto.

Thats really it, but I’m long winded so here we go….

I’ll write just a little more about the use of the Sanity rally’s name. It must be understood that the way social media works, most people who hear about it, probably didnt read the entire facebook page and follow all the discussions. Its not a news report, or a pamphlet – its twitter and facebook. The first sentence in everything, its the entire perception. So when you say “Rally to Restore Sanity”, a lot of people will expect just that. This IS wat led to the confusion, I guarantee it, even my own girlfriend who attended (the girl in the red, sitting to the right of Harry Potter, in the facebook group logo) did not realize until during the event that this was an independent non-centralized rally.

I dont regret going – I enjoyed it, and heard speakers I liked and thanks to Angie for doing everything she did to make it happen. Its just not what I was expecting to see. By all means, do comedy/political rallies, I think its a great idea, and will get lots of people involved – and it a lot fo fun, just dont use the name of an entirely different kind of rally.

The variety of things I will talk about will be greater now, as I’ve become a bit tired of the same old religious conversations – often, as I did before, I don’t write so much on atheism vs. theism. Instead I have had a tendency to write about atheism, to atheists. Lets be honest, no one else is really listening.

I wont only talk about this narrow subject. To that end, my first post will be about my experience at the “Rally to Restore Sanity – Chicago”. This was a “satellite rally” that had a bit of controversy because of the way it went down. I originally posted it as a note on the facebook group associated with the event – but I will modify it for this blog.

Enjoy.

This morning I took the Metra in to work from North Chicago (where I grew up) instead of from Cicero (where I live), I’d never actually been inside that station since the only time I’ve been there the building was closed. As far as I can tell it is always closed except for early on weekdays – they also don’t sell tickets there. The reason for all that is that its not a very safe neighborhood, it wasn’t when I moved there while in 4th grade, it wasn’t when I graduated High School, and it still isn’t today.

So what the hell do you care about all this. As I said, this morning I has the odd occasion of actually leaving for work (in Downtown Chicago) from that station and for the first time sat inside waiting instead of out in the cold – and I overheard a conversation that warmed my little atheist heart.

A commuter and the man behind the counter were discussing what seems to have been some sort of anti-gang or anti-violence event over the weekend. City officials, people from the neighborhood, and even a few young people were in attendance. Long story short, the commuter stated his lack of patience for the neighborhood “church folk” because they were all this right here(as he mimed with hand that all they do is talk). He said, they like to complain about how things are and offer their prayers while people are out here dieing, “if you ain’t out there helping, if you ain’t doin’ sumtin, then shut up”  the man said. He went on for a bit, criticizing those who feel they can fix things by sitting in a room talking to themselves (my words not his, but that was the point he was making).

I call this type of person an accidental humanist. People who maintain their beliefs in spaghetti monsters, but through trail and error, they’ve come to realize that any change that comes and isn’t luck, must be brought on by people’s actions. They grasp the conflict between people power vs. the power of prayer; realizing that prayer is seen as a viable alternative to ‘doing something’, and noticing that its is about as effectiveness as doing nothing at all, while not necessarily realizing that’s exactly what it is.

Perhaps this is a small victory, but I think its one of the most important – its the one that dethrones mysticism and superstition from its reign over a persons thoughts and actions, and firmly puts humanity and reason in its place to take the burden, the blame, and whatever credit there is to give.

I’ve had conversations with fellow atheists regarding people such as these – religious believers who talk and act like secular humanists (Obama) – and I was surprised to such a negative response. Many seem to not be willing to acknowledge the significance of talking and acting like a secular humanist if that person doesn’t reject the god idea all together. Certainly I agree that it would be preferable they not have any of these nonsensical ideas floating around in their heads, but I think I’d rather a world where everyone believed in the spaghetti monster but acted like they didn’t, then what we have today.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins presents us with a scale from 1 to 7 on which we can rank our certainty [or lack there-of] of god’s existence. At some point in the future I may create a scale that makes more sense and is truer to the terms being used that this, but this one has in the past spurred very interesting conversations and debates. I have my disagreements on how this scale is structured, the Misused Terms: Atheist post should makes that clear; however I think this represents more or less the way most people view the options in a simplified way.

1. Strong Theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, – ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2. Very High probability but short of 100%. De facto theist. – ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
3. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning toward theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4. Exactly 50% but not very high. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning toward atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God with the same conviction as Jung ‘knows’ there is one.’

I personally have moved up and down this scale thought my life shifting between 4 to 7, back and forth various times. I wonder how the majority of Atheists/Agnostics/Theists/Diests, rank themselves on this scale, so I’d like you to respond and let us know your views. Please also point out if you’ve read the book (or any other books on the subject, in particular books by what become known as the “New Atheists”) and if it changed how you think of yourself in this regard.

You’ll notice that the A in “atheist” is in parentasis, I did that because I also would like theists to respond, the sale does go from 1 to 7 after all. The last time I posted this question on otherwhirled.com,  almost every single one of the over 30 comments were from atheists or agnostics. So if you could forward this on to some theist friend of your that would be great.

In the truest sense, an atheist in today’s context is simply a person with no belief in any deity. The complication comes in that there are a variety of semantic nuances which alter, sometimes significantly, the philosophical position of being an atheist. For example: “person who does not believe in god” and  “person who believes there is no god” are the two nuanced semantic phrases that express the difference in what is often called “weak atheism” and “strong atheism” respectively. While the difference seems small and insignificant, the implications of believing there isn’t something compared to not believing there is, can actually change the entire idea of what atheism is, in that one is a belief and one is a lack thereof. These two types are not the only ones, every atheist has some particular way in which he or she might prefer to express how they are an atheist or why.

Some of the following will likely draw fire from many atheists, particularly the agnostic ones; but I find these nuanced differences misplaced and irrelevant to atheism specifically. It’s a simple word a-theist,… not-theist. That’s it!

Do you believe in a supernatural god?”

“No” – Ok you’re an atheist.
“Yes” – Then you’re a theist/deist

And heres the one that’s gonna get me in trouble…

“I don’t know” – You’re an atheist, because you dont hold a beleif that there is a god….! (although requiring an additional adjective)

Further nuances and specifics are not inherent to atheism, nothing is – even the differentiation between strong and week. The details, they are simply part of the endless particularities that make us all individuals, instead they are treated almost like denominations of atheism, which I think most atheists will agree is not quite right. The differences between what are referred to as strong or weak atheism, seem to be more compatible with the follow-up to the first question:

Are you sure?

“No” Then you’re agnostic
“Yes” Then you’re just a theist or deist or atheist (depending on answer to first question)
“Don’t know”… How can you not know if you’re sure or not? Sounds like a No – agnostic

These apply regardless of how you answered the first question. If you answered yes to the first question then you would be theist/deist, and then answered no to the second, then you would be an agnostic theist or agnostic deist.

The point is that atheism is best restricted (or expanded, depending on how you look at it) to anyone that doesn’t hold a positive beleif in deities – the oft conflated notions of strong or weak are questions of certitude, the substantive differences of which can be clearly described adjectively by agnosticism.

And thats a great segway into the next segment, on agnosticism,… for whenever I write it. :)

<< Misused Terms: Introduction

I further want to make clear that I am far from a grammer-nazi nor am I a fan of turning philosophical arguments into semantic debates. Unfortunately I tend to use these words in the same ways that I might be criticizing and correcting in this series. Part of the motivation for me to write this, apart from the aforementioned effect on atypical atheists, is that often debates turn semantic due to simple but common misunderstandings about what words mean, and I despise it – and thus tend to stick to common usages. So I guess this is more about how people (including myself) should be using these words.

Misused Terms: Atheism >>

Those very few of you who either know me personally or have known be via twitter long enough, know that I have been blowing hot air about setting up a blog of my own. For the most part I just didn’t what something that looked too crappy, but I looked around for a bit and found this theme which is simple and clean enough for my tastes, and it’ll do for now.

Fact is, I originally began to twitter with the full intent of seeding topics for this blog, I know there is no lack of things to talk about and there are many things which take more than 140-characters to explain. What I will probably do very often is carry conversations from twitter over to this blog. I can’t guarantee how frequent my posts will be, but I will always do my best to keep them interesting.

I also frequently bookmark interesting links I come across (only to never read them), so many you all will be better than I in keeping up – my del.icio.us bookmarks are available in the sidebar.

I am also a programmer, so if bookmark pages or sometimes post off topic and nerd-out please forgive me.

… oh and I’m a Cubs fan, which aside from my future worshipers of Webernetology (i’ll explain that some other time) is the only religion anyone should ever belong to. We’ll make it this year.. just watch!

Be forewarned, I use rude humor and over the top sarcasm, I eat babies (as all respectable atheists do) and don’t feel bad about it, I will probably offend you or insult you directly or my readership as a whole. Deal with it, theres no crying on the internet (its bad for the circuits)

Thanks for giving a crap about what I have to say